' MUHAMMAD MOOSA, K. LEGHARI, J.--- As the common facts and questions of law are involved in the above titled appeals, all the three appeals are being disposed of by this single judgment.
2. Through these appeals the appellant-workers have assailed the orders, dated 10-8-2001 passed by Sindh Labour Court No,IV, Karachi, whereby grievance petitions of the appellants were dismissed.
3. The relevant facts, as contained in the memo. Of appeals, are that the appellants were employed by the respondent-Establishment and were designated as supervisor although they were vested with no supervisory powers and they were working as workmen. According to the appellants, they were not being provided their legal rights vis-a-vis other employees, as such they served a grievance notice in May, 1996 to the respondent-Management. However, instead of replying to the grievance notice, the respondent-Management terminated their services by gate- stop. The appellants sent another grievance notice on 25-9-1996 against the termination of their services with the; prayer for reinstatement in service with back-benefits but the respondent- Management did not accede to the request of the appellants and replied that since Unit No,1 where the appellants were working has been closed down, as such there was no work to be done by the appellants. Each of the appellants filed separate grievance petition stating therein that their services were terminated without any reason and fault on their part with mala fide intention on the false pretext of closure of the mill.
4. The respondent-Management contested the grievance petitions denying the allegations contained therein. They took a plea that the contractors who were working at Unit No, 1 where the appellants used to work, left the Mill abruptly without any notice to the respondent as such no work was available to be done by the appellants. The services of other workers were either terminated or on their own option, they were shifted to other units of the respondents.
5. The learned Labour Court dismissed the grievance petitions mainly on the ground that as the Mill (Unit No,1) of the respondents was closed down, the services of the appellants were rightly terminated after fulfilment of legal formalities contained in section 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
6. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties have been considered and the material placed on record has been thrashed out.
7. From the scrutiny of the evidence Sled by the parties, it reveals that the appellants in their affidavit-in-evidence stated that the respondents had started a Mill under the name and style of Lateef Spinning Mills and some workers were shifted to the said mills while new workers were also recruited and appointed. All the three appellants more or less stated that initially they were the employees of Hussain Textile Mills and after Hussain Spinning Mills Unit No,1 came into existence in 1989, Hussain Textile Mills was closed down and they were employed in Hussain Spinning Mills. Unit No,
1. In cross-examination, all the three appellants more or less stated that after the closure of Unit No,1 of Hussain Spinning Mills some of the workers were transferred to ether units and some of workers left the service after taking their dues in full and final settlement.
8. Respondents in support of their case examined their Factory Manager namely Abdul Razzak Awan. In his affidavit-in-evidence the said witness deposed that the contractors left abruptly and there being no work available for the appellants and other workers, the mill was closed. However, in the affidavit the said witness neither disclosed the names of the contractors, nor the nature of work being done by them, and the explicit circumstances, under which the services of the appellants lost their utility and were rendered redundant, whereby the respondent/ employer was constrained to terminate their services. He further deposed that the services of the appellants were terminated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. However, in his cross- examination conducted in the petition of appellant Muhammad Pervaiz, he admitted that the respondents had not obtained any permission from the Court for closure of the mill. He stated that number of workers were shifted to other units and the appellant was also offered to be shifted to other units but he refused such offer. Nevertheless, he admitted that such offer was not made in writing. In the petition of Muhammad Saleem; the appellant/ witness in his cross-examination stated that the owner of the industry where he was working is also the owner of other units of Hussain Mills. He further admitted that Lateef Spinning Mill was also owned by Hussain Industries Limited.
9. The contention of closure of the factory is also devoid of force and absolutely unacceptable, for the simple reason that the employer is prohibited by the law from closing down whole of the establishment except in case of eventualities specified under the law. S.O. 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 provides as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order 11, no employer shall terminate the employment of more than fifty per cent of the workmen or close down the whole of the establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf, except in the event of fire, catastrophe, stoppage of power supply, epidemics or civil commotion."
' From the perusal of above-quoted provisions of law, it is evident that permission of the Labour Court either for terminating the services of more than fifty per cent of the employees or for closing down the establishment is mandatory in nature. As such the closure of the establishment of the respondent, and termination of workers on that account being in flagrant violation of law, was patently illegal. The learned Labour Court committed grave error of law as it neither considered, nor discussed this aspect of the case, as such rendered an infirm and invalid decision, which could hardly be sustained.
10. It seems that the respondent-Management has acted maliciously inasmuch, admittedly in May, 1996 the appellants served a grievance notice upon the respondent-Management as allegedly they were not being provided their legal, rights vis-a-vis other employees, but instead of responding to the grievances raised by them or even replying to the grievance notice, the respondent-Management terminated their services by way of gate-stopping on the pretext that there was no work for them. However, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the respondent utterly failed to prove their plea. This smacks of mala fide on the part of the respondent- Management.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that all the three appeals are accepted and the orders passed by Labour Court are set aside. Consequently, the grievance petitions filed by the appellant workers stand allowed. Resultantly they are directed to be reinstated in service with back-benefits.
Reinstatement should take effect immediately, however, the back-benefits be paid within sixty days if not earlier.